Plaintiff Was Awarded $3.272 Million Damages (With $3.5 Million Punitive Damages Ordered For A New Trial); Remand Issue Was That Clerical And Paralegal Work Should Not Have Been Billed Out At A $925 Hourly Rate.
Knight v. Johnson Controls, Inc., Case No. A172015 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 2, 2026) (unpublished) has a nice discussion of FEHA fee-shifting principles and sends a message to defense counsel to evaluate these cases seriously before a trial in order to blunt merits and fee exposure, because strict proportionality is not the rule for FEHA fee awards.
In this case, plaintiff brought 12 claims against his employer (with two of those also filed against his supervisor) for FEHA violations, California Family Rights Act retaliation/interference with rights, related discrimination/harassment violations, disability harassment, wrongful termination, breach and invasion of medical privacy, and unfair competition. Ten of the claims fell based on a summary judgment motion, stipulation, or voluntary dismissal before trial. That left plaintiff with FEHA claims for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in the interactive process to be tried. The jury awarded plaintiff $3.272 million in compensatory damages and $3.5 million in punitive damages, but the lower court granted a JNOV and new trial motions as to the punitive damages award.
Plaintiff, over a vigorous defense opposition, moved to recover $1,677,071.25 ($1,118,047 lodestar based on a $925 hourly rate for the legal professionals, and a 1.5 multiplier). The lower court awarded the full request, finding the fees reasonable for the results obtained, the billable hours were adequately supported and reasonable based on the evidence/lower court’s knowledge of the legal market, the successful and unsuccessful claims were “intertwined,” and that a 1.5 multiplier was appropriate. (It also awarded over $83,980 in litigation expenses.) The defense appealed the fee award, raising numerous challenges.
Except to find that clerical and paralegal work should not have commanded a $925 hourly award (remanding on this singular issue), the 1/1 DCA affirmed. Here are the takeaways from the opinion:
- Hourly Rates For the Lead Attorney. $925 per hour was found reasonable based on declarations by counsel, a fee expert, and another experienced Bay Area employment litigator—as well as the lower court’s cognizance of market rates. The appellate court also debunked that hourly rates have to be based on litigation with the same claims, with it sufficing that the general practice areas or complexity can allow for some leeway for comparison.
- Apportionment. There was no need for apportionment where the successful and unsuccessful claims involved either common factual issues or legal issues, as they did in this case.
- Limited Success on Overall Claims. While a trial court may reduce for this factor, it does not have to do so when a plaintiff prevails on only one of several factually related and closely intertwined claims—especially given the substantial jury award.
- Multiplier. This was warranted based on the contingent risk (which alone would have supported the enhancement), counsel’s preclusion from other employment or addressing other tasks, and the skill displayed by counsel during the litigation.